Remensum wrote:And so the adaptive story telling takes a new direction. One has to wonder how the hyrax, the sea cow and the elephant constitute a monphyletic group....but just look at the diversity within artiodactyls.

Anyway, the "creationist" begs to differ on evolutionism...

I was wondering when your trolling would lead you to this forum.

One does not have to wonder why the hyrax, sea cow, and elephant constitute a monophyletic group, one only has to read the source you provided on December 13th (i.e. Kuntner,M; May-Collado,LJ, Agnarsson, I. (2010) Phylogeny and conservation priorities of afrotherian mammals (Afrotheria, Mammalia). Zoologica Scripta). If only you would take the time to read past the abstract of any of your citations, you would already know this.

Furthermore, your point about the artiodactyl clade is moot until you provide a metric of analysis. Your ignorance is not an argument.

Anachronous Rex wrote:EDIT: It seems that the paper you link to is neither peer reviewed. The author is apparently a British-Iranian living in Manchester, who was previously the director of a company dissolved for illegally shipping parts to Iran; he does not appear to have any scientific credentials.

Regardless how useful he might be to your argument, I wouldn't trust him. I certainly would never use someone like that as a source, no matter how convent their opinions.

Anachronous Rex wrote:You realize that even if this is the case, all it means is that things like frame-shifts play a more important role then we had previously thought, right?

Explain.

There are, of course, other means by which mutation new gene sequences are achieved beyond duplication. Surely you're not attempting to debate the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology without knowing that?

"In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis "evolutionists" and the theory itself as "evolutionism." Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion.[7][8]"

And because this is a straw-man, we can dismiss it as in no way relevant to this discussion. Why did you even bring it up?

EDIT: It seems that the paper you link to is neither peer reviewed.

All Wiley-Blackwell journals are peer-reviewed.

Well if by 'peers' you mean laymen then yes. Name one biologist that's given it a positive review.

Also, since you are apparently the author, tell me: where did you get your PhD in biology? Masters? BS?

While I'm on the subject I will, I suppose, offer an apology if the information I presented in your bio was in any way misinformed. Also, if you are indeed Iranian, I urge you to stop this foolishness - I try so very hard to think highly of Ahura Mazda's first perfect land, but its been getting increasingly difficult since about... oh... Shapur the Great.

Our prefrontal lobes are too small. Much too small. That's a problem of the birth canal, I'm very sorry to say for those that like their birth canals... tight.-C. Hitchens.

Anachronous Rex wrote:There are, of course, other means by which mutation new gene sequences are achieved beyond duplication. Surely you're not attempting to debate the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology without knowing that?

Read the paper...I just don't know why you brought up the subject of frameshift mutations.

And because this is a straw-man, we can dismiss it as in no way relevant to this discussion. Why did you even bring it up?

You brought it up. It was your question.

Well if by 'peers' you mean laymen then yes. Name one biologist that's given it a positive review.

Peer-review is a blind process. We will have to wait before other biologists cite the paper.

Also, since you are apparently the author, tell me: where did you get your PhD in biology? Masters? BS?

Why is that important? Did your idol Darwin have the requisite expertise to write a book objecting to the consensus?

While I'm on the subject I will, I suppose, offer an apology if the information I presented in your bio was in any way misinformed. Also, if you are indeed Iranian, I urge you to stop this foolishness - I try so very hard to think highly of Ahura Mazda's first perfect land, but its been getting increasingly difficult since about... oh... Shapur the Great.

Anachronous Rex wrote:There are, of course, other means by which mutation new gene sequences are achieved beyond duplication. Surely you're not attempting to debate the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology without knowing that?

Read the paper...I just don't know why you brought up the subject of frameshift mutations.

Your abstract said that evolution is dependent upon duplication to account for new gene sequences. And while it is obviously the case that this does occur, there are other means to get a new gene. Frameshift is one such (but not the only) means. So even if you are correct that duplication is insufficient (which I do not grant), an obvious answer would be that current evolutionary theory may not be paying enough attention to, say, retroviral insertions (just to pick one at random.)

And because this is a straw-man, we can dismiss it as in no way relevant to this discussion. Why did you even bring it up?

You brought it up. It was your question.

Ahem:

Anyway, the "creationist" begs to differ on evolutionism...

You brought it up.

Well if by 'peers' you mean laymen then yes. Name one biologist that's given it a positive review.

Peer-review is a blind process. We will have to wait before other biologists cite the paper.

Other biologists? You see, this is why you publish in a scientific journal, and not over the internet.

Also, since you are apparently the author, tell me: where did you get your PhD in biology? Masters? BS?

Why is that important? Did your idol Darwin have the requisite expertise to write a book objecting to the consensus?

Wow, that was out of left-field. When exactly did I say Darwin was my idol? I haven't even read his works. Indeed, I'm much more familiar with the writings of the Arda Viraf. But don't try to shift this onto me...

Yes. Darwin was familiar with the natural science of his day. A much better reference would have been Einstein, who actually was something of a layman when he began his career in physics. The point stands however. You're no Einstein, and this is nothing more then a Galileo gambit. If your paper is so robust, get some real scientists to critique it. Also, you just called yourself a biologist, which requires at least a BS, or else it's BS (hehehe.)

And don't think I'm doping the point about your degree. I still want to know what it is, and what its in.

While I'm on the subject I will, I suppose, offer an apology if the information I presented in your bio was in any way misinformed. Also, if you are indeed Iranian, I urge you to stop this foolishness - I try so very hard to think highly of Ahura Mazda's first perfect land, but its been getting increasingly difficult since about... oh... Shapur the Great.

I'll take Allah and Ahmadinejad any day over Ormazd and Shahpour.

But don't you see, that's just what those dirty lizard eaters want.

Although personally, if I had my choice of deities, I'd go for Freyja. Goddess of love, beauty, sex, and war. Kinda shows why the Norse were such fun people doesn't it?

Our prefrontal lobes are too small. Much too small. That's a problem of the birth canal, I'm very sorry to say for those that like their birth canals... tight.-C. Hitchens.

Anachronous Rex wrote:Your abstract said that evolution is dependent upon duplication to account for new gene sequences. And while it is obviously the case that this does occur, there are other means to get a new gene. Frameshift is one such (but not the only) means.

Actually, it is gene duplication *and* frameshift. If you have a frameshift in a singleton it will just mess up the gene.

So even if you are correct that duplication is insufficient (which I do not grant), an obvious answer would be that current evolutionary theory may not be paying enough attention to, say, retroviral insertions (just to pick one at random.)

That is a good point. I touch on retrotranposons - but they are regarded as modulators of genes, not as providing new information when they are inserted in genic regions. The paper discusses all of the scenarios that occur *after* gene duplication:

Other biologists? You see, this is why you publish in a scientific journal, and not over the internet.

It is an online scientific journal....most are these days.

Yes. Darwin was familiar with the natural science of his day. A much better reference would have been Einstein, who actually was something of a layman when he began his career in physics. The point stands however. You're no Einstein, and this is nothing more then a Galileo gambit. If your paper is so robust, get some real scientists to critique it. Also, you just called yourself a biologist, which requires at least a BS, or else it's BS (hehehe.)

I am an informatician.

And don't think I'm doping the point about your degree. I still want to know what it is, and what its in.

Anachronous Rex wrote:Your abstract said that evolution is dependent upon duplication to account for new gene sequences. And while it is obviously the case that this does occur, there are other means to get a new gene. Frameshift is one such (but not the only) means.

Actually, it is gene duplication *and* frameshift. If you have a frameshift in a singleton it will just mess up the gene.

Unless the gene serves no function to begin with, as seems to be the case for most of them, then it doesn't make any difference if it is 'messed up.' Or the frameshift impacts a retroviral insertion, which creates new genetic material without duplication. Or even, though it would still be at least potentially detrimental, if you have an extra copy of said gene located in your other chromosome.

I mean shit mate, I'm not even a biologist and even I can see that your damning critique is nothing of the sort.

So even if you are correct that duplication is insufficient (which I do not grant), an obvious answer would be that current evolutionary theory may not be paying enough attention to, say, retroviral insertions (just to pick one at random.)

That is a good point. I touch on retrotranposons - but they are regarded as modulators of genes, not as providing new information when they are inserted in genic regions.

Of course they don't provide anything functional, but they provide new material to be worked upon in the same way as a duplication. And as I said, the majority of DNA is non-functional, so there's no shortage of material in any case. Clearly, it doesn't even matter if duplication is as rare as you say, the raw stuff of evolution exists in ample supply.

Other biologists? You see, this is why you publish in a scientific journal, and not over the internet.

It is an online scientific journal....most are these days.

Mhm. Listen mate, whatever you have to tell yourself to feel as though you meet academic standards.

Yes. Darwin was familiar with the natural science of his day. A much better reference would have been Einstein, who actually was something of a layman when he began his career in physics. The point stands however. You're no Einstein, and this is nothing more then a Galileo gambit. If your paper is so robust, get some real scientists to critique it. Also, you just called yourself a biologist, which requires at least a BS, or else it's BS (hehehe.)

I am an informatician.

And don't think I'm doping the point about your degree. I still want to know what it is, and what its in.

BS computer science. MS informatics (with bioinformatics modules).

So basically you're a techie who happens to work in the field of medicine. I'm sure you think this gives you all sorts of wonderful insights into the realm of biology. But at the end of the day, a degree in Biology (or at least Biochemistry) is necessary in order to call yourself a Biologist. You are not a Biologist.

Yes, but you're not supposed to eat them. I'm reminded of one of my favorite verses of the Avesta, paraphrased:"If you happen to come across an Arab defiling fire with a lizard ... after you've killed them."

Ah, the good old days, when men were men and the Persians ruled Egypt to the Indus, Thrace to Bactria in a tolerant (unless you eat lizards) cosmopolitan Empire. Damn you Alexander! Damn you to Ahriman!

Our prefrontal lobes are too small. Much too small. That's a problem of the birth canal, I'm very sorry to say for those that like their birth canals... tight.-C. Hitchens.

What I can say is that contrary to your creationist friends assertions, evolution is certainly not constrained by genetics. In CAS the quantity of complexity is expressed mathematically. I won't get in to all the details but essentially it comes down to a very large number of permutations.

Of course the vast majority of these permutations would be absolutely nonsense and a total mess. And again there are ways of working out what the possible search space is based on the population and starting position of all agents.

But he's so wrong he's not even wrong on this 'evolution constrained by genetics' idea. Its certainly a lower number of permutations than infinity... but a shit load more than you'd ever need. Its like saying a casio calculator from the 1970's with an added 10gb of ram is constrained in carrying out multiplications... yes it is... but seriously when is 10gb of ram ever going to be used in a 1970's calculator anyway? The resources are far beyond the 'limitations' becasuse the functions of the organism are never going to use them.

CAS is essentially a study above evolution... in other words what you think is the process of evolution, is actaully just different solutions presented by the process of emergent complexity in an adaptable search space. Its not just living organisms that evolve y'know...lol

There is nothing (as you pointed out) that would act as some sort of barrier or principle that would stop one species from mutating to another. And essentially thats just a classification by humans anyway. If we really wanted to we could reclassify the Doberman Pincer as a 'WorbleDoodle' tomorrow morning and claim it as a new species...and it would be. Basically Macroevolution by reclassification.

Without such classification, by ignoring all our clades and just looking at the mathematical process...there is essentially no barrier... Theres nothing stopping any form from adapting to its circumstance... nothing that is except genetic load...which itself is subject to evolutionary processes too! The Genetic load of a given organism can in fact change there is an upper limit, but it can change.

Now there is a clear barrier that stops a dog from evolving over time with traits that are so far fetched they deny possibility... Dogs can't evolve to fly backwards in space with biological jet engines carrying biological jet fuel... thats not possible in this search space and certainly is prevented by a dogs genes.

And truly if this guy had written anything on CAS....he'd know that... how he could write a paper on complexity and think there is a barrier stopping speciation is frankly beyond me. Its like stating he can count apples but not oranges because theres a known barrier between apples and other fruit! It's simply lunacy....

If Gods are so powerful how come they don't have a facebook page?Born and remained atheistic since 1968.

mumblingmickey, two things:When you use abbreviations, it would help me a lot if you'd actually spell them out once. In this case it took me all of ten seconds to find out that CAS means Complex Adaptive Systems, but even those ten seconds discourage.

Second, when you do revive two-year-old threads (I wouldn't do it, but whatever), please provide some context other than one quote of a link. I really don't want to go through the whole thread again, just to understand what you've said. Which is a pity, because I'm sure it's excellent.

"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche